Mubark Bin Islambin Chaus And Others v. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Honble Minister Of State Revenue Department And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:19811

02. CA 4698.26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

AURANGABAD BENCH : AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4698 OF 2026 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.206 OF 2025 Mubark Bin Islambin Chaus and ors.

Vs.

State of Maharashtra through its Hon'ble Minister of State Revenue Department and ors.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. Jagdish V. Deshpande, Advocate for applicants. Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for non-applicant No.6.

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 30.04.2026.

.

The application for review was fixed for hearing on 27.03.2026. On the previous date of hearing it was agreed between the learned advocates that rather than advancing submissions via video-conferencing, they would come to Nagpur for hearing of the application. Mr. Mujtaba, learned advocate for non-applicant No.6 was present before this Court at Nagpur on 27.03.2026. learned advocate for applicants was absent. Mr. Mujtaba, made a statement that he was not appraised that the learned advocate for the applicants was to seek adjournment and therefore, he had come to Nagpur all the way from Aurangabad for hearing of the application. In view of absence of learned advocate for the applicants and particularly having regard to the statement made by

02. CA 4698.26.odt the learned advocate for respondent No.6, the application for review was dismissed in default. 2.

Present application is filed for restoration of review application.

3.

Mr. Deshpande, learned advocate for the applicants, contends that it was conveyed to the learned advocate for the non-applicants that, due to the situation prevailing in Gulf region causing scarcity of petroleum products, it was not possible for him to come down to Nagpur.

4.

Although Mr. Mujtaba disputes that he had consented for adjournment, in fairness, he does not dispute that telephonic calls in this regard were received by him.

5.

In order to avoid further controversy on this aspect, it is deemed appropriate to restore the application for review so that the review petition can be heard on merits.

6.

Application for restoration is allowed.

7.

List the review application for hearing on 05.05.2026.

8.

Interim order, if any, to continue till the next date.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) T ...

αɳɱαყ